Requirements for Standard Ecological Survey

Procedures in the MENA Region

C. Smillie, Principal Ecologist, EnvironmentalConsultancy.co.uk

W: http://environmentalconsultancy.co.uk
E:enquiries@environmentalconsultancy.co.uk T: (+44) 141 416 4447

ABSTRACT

Countries in the Middle East and North Africa region house a variety of ecosystems
from the dense pine woodland of the Algerian coast to the extremely sparsely
vegetated desert of Oman. Although cataloguing of flora and fauna in certain areas
has been meticulously detailed, standard techniques for rapid assessment across the
variety of habitats has not yet been established. Such techniques are crucial for
sustainable development, as exemplified by Environmental Impact Assessment – a
key goal of the Rio Earth Summit. This paper recommends a number of standard
techniques based on size, ecotype and habitat/species of interest. Recommendations
are then made on approaches to determine nature conservation value. This can then
be used for development projects to inform mitigation requirements and
environmental management plans.

INTRODUCTION

Ecology in the MENA Region

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region is dominated by hyper-arid, arid,
semi-arid and dry sub-humid ecotypes, with Earthtrends (2003) suggesting 66% of the
MENA Region being dominated by such drylands. Vegetation is sparse in this
ecotype and rarely mapped, with the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) citing biodiversity in dry lands as requiring “further research, assessments
and analyses” (IUCN, 2006). However, the sparseness of the vegetation combined
with micro hot-spots, such as wetlands, oases and groves (Ghosn, 2006) make such
flora particularly valuable in otherwise barren habitats.
Despite the dominance of drylands, the MENA Region is home to a wide variety of
ecotypes, ranging from the Aleppo pine forests of the Mediterranean and the salt
marsh coastal ecosystem of the Gulf countries to the diverse assemblages of the
Egyptian Delta due to the proximity of the River Nile.

EIA in the MENA Region

Environmental Impact Assessment is a key goal arising from the 1992 Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development (Principle 17) and is enshrined within
the laws of the majority of the MENA countries. The vigour in which these laws are
applied, however, are variable (Ahmed & Wood, 2002), often with the result that
projects are passed by local authorities without the proper understanding to
adequately scrutinize the subsequent Environmental Statements. Often, the driving
factor behind detailed EIAs in the Region is not national legislation but rather lender
requirements. International investors in the Region will often have requirements for
projects to be completed according to procedures consistent with, for example, the
World Bank Environmental Assessment Sourcebook (1991) or the European
Investment Bank Environmental Statement (2004).

EcIA
Ecological Impact Assessment is ‘the process of identifying, quantifying and
evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their
components. If properly implemented, it provides a scientifically defensible approach
to ecosystem management’ (Treweek, 1999).
According to the UK Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (IEEM, 2007),
surveys should be conducted using a three-stage process.
• Stage 1 (Scoping study) identifies the major environmental variables from
correspondence, websites, such as Google Earth or/and a brief walkover
survey.
• Stage 2, the major habitats within the footprint of the project are mapped in
some detail, thereby allowing comments on the nature conservation value of
areas, including potential for protected species.
• Stage 3 is not always required but where the Stage 2 has identified important
areas (for both fauna and flora), a further study can indicate the true value of
the area. In the case of protected species, Stage 3 is often a legal necessity.
Ecologists conducting field surveys within the MENA Region may be hampered by a
lack of clear direction for which type of survey techniques to use. Rather, ecologists
may then use methods based on their experience. However, survey techniques for
temperate regions may not necessarily be suitable, or, certainly, the best option for
surveys in drylands. Likewise, assessment of nature conservation value is often based
upon legal instruments, such as statutorily protected areas. However, these may be
lacking in many developing countries.

Aims
The main aim of this paper is to present a series of survey techniques that can be used
as a framework for performing terrestrial EcIA surveys, plus suggested means to
determine the nature conservation value. Faunal studies are not included in this
paper, nor are marine systems, with the exception of certain inter-tidal habitats.

RECOMMENDED METHODS OF HABITAT SURVEY

Remote Sensing
The advent of sites, such as Google Earth or Virtual Earth, has allowed ecologists
unprecedented access to aerial and satellite imagery. Such imagery, including also
other aerial photography, such as fixed-wing photography, can allow broad mapping
of ‘habitat areas’. For example, a series of woodlands connected by wildlife corridors
such as hedgerows may be classed as one ‘habitat area’ due to their interconnected
ecology, rather than a series of disparate woodlands and hedgerows. Likewise, large
areas of desert, agricultural land or urban conurbations may also be classed into their
‘habitat areas’ Figure 1.
Figure 1 Interpretation of an aerial image into habitat areas (taken from Jacobs, 2006)
As well as defining larger areas of habitat, remote sensing, in the hands of an
experienced analyst, can also allow the breaking down of large areas of habitat into
smaller portions of differing nature conservation value. For instance, woodland areas
may be subdivided into compartments dominated by conifers, broadleaves and scrub.
Desert environments may be broken down into dune systems, sabkhas, pavements and
so on.

Mexican Rapid Arid Survey (Valverde & Montaña, 1995)

This methodology was developed to allow rapid assessment of semi-arid zones in
developing countries. The authors examined vegetation communities in the
Chihuahuan Desert and related these to environmental variables, specifically
landform, topography, surface rockiness and soil origin - all of which have a direct
effect on water variability (MacMahon, 1981; Noy-Meir, 1981; Ward et al., 1993).
Landform was found to best explain the vegetation community (as illustrated in
Figure 2 and Figure 3), with the other variables providing a high degree of
predictability.
Often, topographical maps represent the best information available in MENA
countries, providing, at least landform and topographical data. By linking this data
with vegetation community types, a rapid assessment can be achieved. Initially, this
means re-assessing the existing vegetation community data into basic landform data.
For instance, Valverde & Montaña (1995) classified three vegetation types from
literature (shrubland, mixed shrublands with rosulate succulents and mixed shrubland
with cladophyllous succulents), plus another from field study (mixed shrublands with
microphanerophytes) with landform (alluvial plains, valleys, rolling hills of
calcareous origin, igneous plateaux and low hills, low sierras of calcareous origin,
complex sierras of calcareous, igneous and metamorphic origin and high sierras of
calcareous origin), topography (plain, nearly plain, slightly wavy, wavy, highly wavy
and irregular) and other similar simple measures of surface rockiness and soil origin.
Figure 2 Landforms present in a 10 x 8 km Figure 3 Vegetation types present in a 10 x 8
surface of the Mapimí Bolsón. Extracted and km surface of the Mapimí Bolsón. Extracted
redrawn from the 172,000 ha and redrawn from the 172,000 ha vegetation
geomorphological map made by Breimer map made by Montaña (1988). ( ) = mixed
(1985). ( ) = alluvial plains; = valleys; ( ) shrubland with cladophyllous succulents; ( ) =
= rolling hills of calcareous origin; ( ) = mixed shrublands with rosulate succulents; (
igneous plateaux and low hills; ( ) = complex ) = shrublands; ( ) = mixed shrublands with
sierras of calcareous, igneous and microphanerophytes (taken from Valverde &
metamorphic origin (taken from Valverde & Montaña, 1995).
Montaña, 1995).
Initially, this would require an investment into background work, as most of the
vegetation literature and maps are readily available within the Region. With limited
field trials to ground truth the data and provide amendments, this information may be
transferred into a GIS system. An estimate of potential major ecological variables
would then be readily available for any project within the scope of this data.
Potentially, this may mean across the MENA Region as a whole.

Rapid Coastal Assessment (PERSGA, 2004)

Rapid Coastal Assessment was devised as a means of undertaking rapid surveys of the
Red Sea in the 1980s. However, this technique has since been applied to a number of
other area in Africa and the Middle East. This technique allows both the resources
and impacts to be assessed within a given area. Conflicts between resource and usage
can then be detailed. By detailing the areas of high resource versus high pressure,
protection measures or site selection can be achieved early in a given project, thus
putting mitigation at the heart of development.
At present, the proforma for this survey technique is heavily geared towards coastal
systems. However, it would be logical to believe that modification of the survey
questions could be adapted towards a number of different habitat systems. For
example, the current listing of flora (mangroves, seagrass, halophytes, algae,
freshwater vegetation and other) may be adapted to more terrestrial environments,
such as semi-natural woodland, plantation, rough grassland, agriculture and so on,
according to the geographical area.

Scale-Related Vegetation Survey

Malan and Westfall's (Westfall & Malan, 1986; Malan & Westfall, 1987; Westfall et
al., 1994) scale-related vegetation survey has been used as a management tool across
many areas of Africa – particularly South Africa. The technique basically involves
the reduction of aerial or satellite images to vegetation maps at the smallest unit
appropriate for the map size. Malan and Westfall claim that the units produced by
this technique are suitable for vegetation stratification as floristic variation and stand
area are related to scale. The units can then be cross-referenced with existing
vegetation data or ground-truthing through sampling. Other variables, such as
geology, soils or agricultural practices, may often be accessed through existing maps
and data.
This technique would be useful for Stage 1 assessments of large projects, where major
environmental constraints can be identified immediately. However, separating an
area into general vegetation units is not usually acceptable for Stage 2 assessments as,
like the Mexican Arid Survey, the footprint of the potentially impacted area requires
more detailed examination than the general area. For instance, although the general
vegetation unit may be plantation woodland, the ground flora may contain small areas
of important habitat not identifiable using this survey technique.

Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 1993)

Phase 1 habitat survey (Figure 4) is a suitable technique for assessing areas of diverse
habitat, allowing delineation of major biotypes and the need for further, more detailed
surveys to be considered and recommended where appropriate. This has become a
widely accepted method for surveying semi-natural habitats and is regarded as an
essential part of the EIA process whenever ecological receptors are likely to be
affected by a development (IEMA, 2006; IEEM, 2007). Problems, however, are clear
when attempting to map areas of desert where vegetation is sparse and remote.
Similarly, in areas overwhelmingly dominated by a single ecotype, such as Aleppo
pine forest, survey maps may be unsuitable. Although, forests with multiple canopies,
such as Aleppo pine dominated areas combined with areas of oak dominated
woodland, could benefit from an initial assessment to delineate, in this example,
woodland compartments.

Figure 4 An example of a Phase 1 diagram (taken from Jacobs Babtie, 2006)

The Phase 1 technique was developed for UK vegetation, with the descriptions of the
various types of habitat (such as salt marsh, semi-improved grassland, swamp and so
on) centred on UK species. Thus, when applied to the MENA Region, the ecologist
must interpret the habitats according to local species. For instance, a habitat
containing species such as Arthrocnemum macrostachyum, Suaeda vermiculata and
Zygophyllum album may be interpreted as salt marsh by an experienced ecologist,
despite these not being indicator species listed within the Phase 1 survey manual.
The Extended Phase 1 Survey is more commonly used in development projects. This
technique uses the Phase 1 survey as a base. However, Phase 1 is designed to be
performed upon 1:10 000 maps, whilst Extended Phase 1 uses scales appropriate to
the development – often smaller scale maps. Extended Phase 1 also stresses the need
to identify the scope for protected species, before any more expensive species specific
surveys are undertaken. Thus, if no suitable habitat exists, these species specific
surveys may be shelved.

Rare Plant Survey (ANPC, 2000)

The objective of a Rare Plant survey is to determine whether rare species are present
on site. This survey does not necessarily record all plant species or changes in
habitat. As such, this survey tends to be detailed and time-consuming. In EcIAs, this
technique will largely be undertaken during Stage 3 as a result of recommendations
made during a more general Stage 2 survey.
The term ‘rare plant’ in this case derives from the Alberta Natural Heritage
Information Centre. Obviously, these rare plants do not transfer to the MENA
Region. Instead, assessments of valued plants (most often this will translate as
protected plants but may be locally rare where identified) should be made during
Stages 1 and 2. Where further information is required on presence, abundance,
location, health or another matter identified by an ecologist, then this technique may
be recommended as an additional survey.

River Corridor Survey (NRA, 1992)

River Corridor Survey (RCS) was developed by the UK National Rivers Authority
and involves the production of standardised maps of vegetation structure along 500 m
stretches of river, along with mapping and recording all physical features on a 100 m
wide corridor centred on the watercourse (Figure 5). Naturally, being developed for
UK habitats, this procedure requires some adjustment for use within the Region.
However, this should be within the scope of an experienced ecologist.
Unsurprisingly, RCS is, with adaptation, a suitable method for surveying rivers within
the MENA Region. However, RCS can also be easily adapted to survey any linear
structure. Thus, this technique can be used to map rivers, canals, pipelines, roads, dry
valleys, overhead lines and a variety of other natural or artificial features. Due to this
survey being of a reasonably time-consuming nature, this technique is largely of use
in the Stage 3 process, although with purely linear developments, this may be used in
Stage 2.
Figure 5 Example of a River Corridor Survey (taken from Young Associates, 2005)

Transects
Although used extensively in research to gauge vegetation composition, in EcIA,
transects are primarily of use for monitoring purposes. Transects cannot normally be
used in EcIA for Stage 2 surveys as the survey must take account the entire footprint
of the proposed impact. Thus, a transect may miss areas of important habitat as they
are located outside of the survey corridor, yet inside of the development footprint.
Hence, a technique which attempts to cover the whole footprint must be used in the
Stage 2 survey. Although it would appear that linear structures (roads, railways,
pipelines, canals etc), would lend itself to a transect survey in the Stage 2 or Stage 3
process, the majority of times, a greater amount of information would be provided by
using an adapted River Corridor Survey.
Transects can be very useful for monitoring impacts and mitigation. By fixing a
transect across an area due to be impacted, details can be provided regarding
vegetation structure before and after the impact. Transects are also useful for
gathering data regarding succession. For example, where mitigation of the impact is
designed to re-vegetate an area, a transect can run from one area outside of the
impact, across the mitigated area, meeting the non-impacted side directly across.
Succession can then be measured using simple line drawings, combined with
dominant species/community codings (Figure 6).
Pre-impact
← 30 m →←10 m→← 30 m →← 20 m →←10 m→
Species x Bare Species y Species x Species z
Post-impact
← 30 m →← 60 m →←10 m→
Species x Bare Species z
Post-mitigation
← 40 m →← 40 m →←10 m→←10 m→
Species x Bare Species x Species z

Figure 6 Line drawings illustrating monitoring of dominant vegetation before impact, after
impact (as shown by an increase in bare earth) and post-mitigation (regeneration reducing bare
earth).
Quadrats
Quadrats are regularly used in to conduct Stage 3 surveys in EIA. However, these
may not be as useful for the MENA Region as elsewhere. In the UK, for example,
results can be used to categorise plant assemblages into communities listed in the
National Vegetation Classification (NVC). These classifications are described in
detail within British Plant Communities (Rodwell, 1990 et seq.). The descriptions
include habitat, history, affinities, species list, succession and distribution. In the
MENA Region, however, such detailed classification is rare. Where such information
does exist, then quadrats can be extremely useful. However, where this information is
absent, then the result is often merely the recognition of a community through
dominance. Where this is likely to be the outcome, then a quicker method, such as
Phase 1 is recommended.
Where quadrats can be useful is in areas of high biodiversity identified using a Stage
2 (rarely Stage 1) survey. Here, a Stage 3 quadrat survey can be used to obtain a
comprehensive species list, containing dominant ratings (for example, according to
the Domin scale or DAFOR ratings), constant species and differential vegetation.
Quadrats can also be used for monitoring purposes. In particular, quadrats can be
useful for monitoring species diversity and vertical succession. For monitoring
purposes, quadrats should be fixed, either by physical markers or by using GPS co-
ordinates. In all cases, methodology should be similar to that of the NVC or
Australian Native Vegetation Survey (Biological Survey of South Australia, 1997),
that is, quadrats should sample representative ‘typical’ areas of the habitat, rather than
‘special’ areas, e.g. areas that are not especially rich or poor should be sampled.
Ecotones should be avoided with homogenous stands of vegetation selected instead.
Quadrat sizes should be decided by the ecologist on the ground but as a guide the
following may be useful:
50 x 50 m for woodland canopy/open desert;
10 x 10 m for scrub and species poor grassland/sub-shrub
4 x 4 m for scrub/sub-shrub
2 x 2 m for species-rich grassland
Note: for woodlands, the canopy should be surveyed separately from the ground
layer. The ground layer should be identified as a separate habitat, for instance,
species-poor grassland if appropriate.

SURVEY TECHNIQUES SUMMATION

Due to the lack of recommended ecological survey techniques, ecologists have often
previously utilised techniques according to their country of origin/training. However,
these techniques are not always suitable for the ecosystems of the MENA Region.
Additionally, some of these techniques are more useful for generally classifying an
area. However, EcIA requires an assessment of the conservation value of the area(s)
to be affected, either directly or indirectly. This paper recommends a suite of
techniques drawn from across the globe that may be used by experienced ecologists
according to the development or/and the habitat (Table 1).
Table 1 Techniques that may be used for habitat assessment following the three stage guidance
recommended by IEEM (2007), plus monitoring. (*) represents that this technique is rarely used
in this stage but may occasionally be appropriate.
Technique Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Monitoring
Remote Sensing * *
Scale-Related * *
Mexican Arid *
Rapid Coastal Assessment * * *
(Extended) Phase 1 * * *
Rare Plant (*) * *
River Corridor (*) * *
Quadrats * *
Transects (*) *

Further work (Table 2) is required to make these techniques fully integrated into the
MENA Region. In particular:
The Phase 1 habitat survey requires updating to reflect additional habitats (e.g. desert
environments) and replacement indicator species in the MENA Region.
Similar updates are required for the River Corridor Survey.
Trials to provide vegetation-environment relationships for the MENA Region using
the Mexican Arid Survey are required. It is likely the benefits of this package will be
wide-ranging across the Region, saving costs for developers/ conservation
organisations that require rapid assessments of major environmental constraints.
By altering the Rapid Coastal Assessment technique, this survey may be adapted for
terrestrial environments. It is unlikely that one set of questions could be useful for all
terrestrial habitats. Nevertheless, methods for use in selected environments, such as
arid, temperate, montane and so on would be extremely useful as a management tool.
Obviously, once such proformas are detailed, these could be implemented time and
again across the region without the need for further altering of the questionnaire.
Table 2 Additional work required to integrate survey techniques into the MENA Region
Technique Additional Work Required
Remote Sensing
Mexican Arid Vegetation-environment relationships established through field trials
Rapid Coastal Modification of survey questionnaire towards terrestrial environments
Assessment
Scale-Related
(Extended) Phase 1 Additional habitat categories.
Update of indicator species.
Rare Plant Readily available local and national species lists.
River Corridor Additional habitat categories.
Update of indicator species.
Additional work is generally required in cataloguing habitat requirements of flora to
determine local and national priority species/habitats. Often this work is present in
the MENA Region, although not necessarily enshrined in law nor necessarily easily
accessible in all countries.

RECOMMENDED METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

Red List
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species provides taxonomic, conservation status
and distribution information of species. These species are globally evaluated to
catalogue and highlight those taxa that are facing a high risk of global extinction to
those of least concern (http://redlist.org, 2008). Species can be arranged by, for
instance, country and habitat. Thus, by selecting the appropriate codes, the species of
most concern in the salt marshes of Egypt may be listed.
There are, however, two main drawbacks to the Red List. Firstly, not all species are
categorised due to data deficiency and those that are may not necessarily be
categorised with the most up-to-date information. Secondly, the local or regional
status of species is not necessarily the same as that of the global status. For instance,
tree-dwelling invertebrates within Mediterranean forests may be of 'least concern'
globally. However, within a sparsely vegetated environment, these same species may
be a local conservation priority. Nevertheless, the IUCN Red List should always be
referenced when deciding the key species of global conservation concern.

EUNIS
The EUNIS Database is useful both as a tool for identifying habitats from field data
and as a source of conservation information. Ecologists are able to identify potential
habitats using species identified from either surveys or data searches. Once a habitat
is identified, the database can be used to assess distribution of this habitat and the
legal status in, at least, the European Union. Although this may not at first glance
appear to be useful in the MENA Region, many habitats, especially in North Africa,
are reflections of those in the EU. Thus, it can be generally assumed a protected
habitat in Southern Spain is likely to be as important if detected in, say, Morocco.
Therefore, conservation value can be identified by proxy. This is similar to the
procedure undertaken in many Eastern European countries not within the EU.

Legislation, Directives and Agreements

In areas such as the European Union, assessment of ecological value can be relatively
straightforward, based as it is on defined priorities, national legislation and EU
Directives. Where such legislation may not adequately cover species, for instance, a
species not under threat nationally, may be locally rare, conservation bodies and other
interested parties are usually present to offer advice on such matters. In MENA, such
legislation or interested parties may not be present to identify such local
species/habitats. Where such deficiencies exist, the following may be useful.
Local expertise may be employed. The ecologist consulted may not be regarded as
local to the area, if no suitable candidate exists, but may be local to the general area.
For instance, although divided by national boundaries, an ecologist specialising in the
Sahara of Libya will have an ability to identify priorities in the deserts of Egypt.
Likewise, an ecologist from the coastal Aleppo forests of Algeria may be able to
advise on the forested strips of neighbouring Tunisia.
Habitat expertise can also provide valuable information on conservation concern.
Although not neighbouring, the drylands of the Western Sahara and those of the
Sudan have similar conservation concerns that can be identified by a suitable
experienced ecologist. Likewise, the pine woodlands of the Maghreb extend to Israel
and beyond. Although, there are differences in species, literature research by an
ecologist experienced in this general habitat should be able to interpret pressing
matters of conservation concern.
The use of remote sensing, such as Google Earth can provide an estimate of habitats
of local conservation concern. For instance, a small wooded area in a site largely
devoid of woodland would be of local or greater conservation concern. The scale of
map used is largely dependant upon the project, habitat and scale available. A 1:10
000 map will often be an appropriate scale for reasonably diverse areas to map local
concerns, although this should be altered by an experienced ecologist according to the
area.

REFERENCES

Ahmed B. & Wood C. (2002). A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt,
Turkey and Tunisia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22: 213–234
ANPC (2000). Information Bulletin: ANPC Guidelines for Rare Plant Surveys in
Alberta. Alberta Native Plant Council.
Biological Survey of South Australia (1997). Vegetation Survey Manual. BSSA.
Earthtrends (2003). Country Profiles: Egypt. http://earthtrends.wri.org
European Investment Bank (2004) Environmental Statement. EIB.
Ghosn A. A. (2006). Dryland Biodiversity: International Developments and
Directions. Biodiversity and the Oil and Gas Industry in Arid Environments: North
Africa and the Middle East: Int’l Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation
Association (IPIECA) Abu Dhabi.
IEMA (2006). Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment. Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment, Lincoln, UK
IEEM. (2007) Guidelines for ecological impact assessment. IEEM, Winchester, UK.
IUCN (2006). Biological diversity of dry and sub-humid lands (Agenda Item 15).
Eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (COP8), Curitiba, Brazil.
IUCN (2008). http://redlist.org
Jacobs Babtie (2006). Kenmare Water Supply Scheme Ecology - Site Survey Report.
Jacobs (2006) Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route Draft Environmental Statement.
JNCC (1993). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a Technique for
Environmental Audit. Joint Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK.
MacMahon J.A. (1981) Introduction: In: Goodall D.W. & Perry R.A. (Eds), Arid-
land Ecosystems: Structure, functioning and management, Vol. 2, pp. 263–269.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 881 pp.
Malan O.G. & Westfall R. H. (1987). A new strategy for vegetation mapping with
the aid of Landsat MSS data. Advances in Space Research 7,11: 97-103.
NRA (1992). River Corridor Surveys – Methods and Procedures. Conservation
Technical Handbook No.1. National Rivers Authority, Bristol.
Noy-Meir I. (1981) Understanding arid ecosystems: the challenge. In: Goodall D.W.
& Perry R.A. (Eds), Arid-land Ecosystems: structure, functioning and management,
Vol. 2, pp. 447–449. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 881 pp.
PERSGA (2004). Standard Survey Methods for Key Habitats and Key Species in the
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the
Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
Rodwell J.S. (Ed.) (1991a). British Plant Communities. Volume 1 – Woodlands and
Scrub. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell J.S. (Ed.) (1991b). British Plant Communities. Volume 2 – Mires and
Heaths. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell J.S. (Ed.) (1992). British Plant Communities. Volume 3 – Grasslands and
montane communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell J.S. (Ed.) (1995). British Plant Communities. Volume 4 – Aquatic
communities, swamps and tall herb fens. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell J.S. (Ed.) (2000). British Plant Communities. Volume 5 – Maritime Cliffs,
Sand Dunes, Saltmarshes and Other Vegetation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Treweek J. (1999). Environmental Impact Assessment. Blackwell Science Ltd.
Valverde P.L. & Montaña C. (1995). A rapid methodology for vegetation survey in
Mexican arid lands. Journal of Arid Environments 34: 89–99
Ward D., Olsvig-Whittaker L. & Lawes M. (1993). Vegetation–environment
relationships in a Negev Desert erosion cirque. Journal of Vegetation Science, 4: 83–
94
Westfall R.H. & Malan O.G. (1986). A method for vegetation stratification using
scale-related, vegetation-enhanced satellite imagery. Bothalia 16: 263-268
Westfall R.H., van Staden J.M., Panagos M.D., Breytenbach P.J.J. & Greeff A.
(1994). Manual of Survey Methods for Vegetation Sampling. Range and Forage
Institute, South Africa.
World Bank (1991). Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. WB.
Young Associates (2005). North Calder Water.